Political liberalism
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.A: "'Liberalism' is defined as a social ethic that advocates liberty, and equality in general." – C. A. J. (Tony) Coady Distributive Justice, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.440. B: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." – Lord Acton Liberalism has its roots in the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. Compare for the latter aspect the Oxford Manifesto of 1947 of the Liberal International (Respect for the language, faith, laws and customs of national minorities), Oxford Manifesto of 1997 (We believe that close cooperation among democratic societies through global and regional organizations, within the framework of international law, of respect for human rights, the rights of national and ethnic minorities, and of a shared commitment to economic development worldwide, is the necessary foundation for world peace and for economic and environmental sustainability), the ELDR Electoral programme 1994 (Protecting the rights of minorities flows naturally from liberal policy, which seeks to ensure equal opportunities for everyone) and e.g. I have a dream of Martin Luther King All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.Compare the Oxford Manifesto of the Liberal International (These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through a free and secret ballot, with due respect for the liberties and opinions of minorities) Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property. Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. Classical liberals, believe that the provision of negative rights, that is freedom from coercion alone, constitutes freedom.McGowan, J. (2007). American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press. As a result they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts freedom when enforced coercively by law, emphasize laissez-faire economic policy, and oppose the welfare state.Chandran Kukathas, The Many and the One: Pluralism in the Modern World, Richard Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, editors, 2003, p. 61 Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation. Etymology and historical usage The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"). It is widely associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom. Livy's History of Rome from Its Foundation describes the struggles for freedom between the plebeian and patrician classes. Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations writes about "...the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed... ." Largely dormant during the vicissitudes of the Middle Ages, the struggle for freedom began again in the Italian Renaissance, in the conflict between the supporters of free city states and supporters of the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor. Niccolò Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, laid down the principles of republican government. John Locke in England and the thinkers of the French Enlightenment articulated the struggle for freedom in terms of the Rights of Man. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal has long been in the English language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776–88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant." The first English language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy", according to the OED, dates from about 1801 and comes from the French libéral, "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)". An early English language citation: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated."Hel. M. WILLIAMS, Sk. Fr. Rep. I. xi. 113," (presumably Helen Maria Williams) Sketches of the State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic, 1801. Cited in the Oxford English Dictionary. The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution tried to establish a government based on liberal principles. Economists such as Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), enunciated the liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in Cádiz, may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to express their opposition to the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy. Beginning in the late 18th century, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries. Trends within liberalism Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals. Emerging from those controversies, out of classical liberalism, are a number of different trends within liberalism. As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "political liberalism" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a constitutional monarchy), over absolute monarchy or dictatorship; "cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty over laws limiting liberty for patriotic or religious reasons; "economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over government regulation; and "social liberalism" for the support of equality under the law, and relief provided by the government from suffering caused by poverty or natural disaster. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, rather than any one of the pure forms listed above. Some principles liberals generally agree upon: :* Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy. :* Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote, : ::Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today. However, some trends within liberalism reveal stark differences of opinion: :* Economic liberalism, also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible. It advocates laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. :* Social liberalism, also known as new liberalism (not to be confused with 'neoliberalism') and reform liberalism, arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Generally speaking, social liberals support free trade and a market-based economy in which the basic needs of all individuals are met. Furthermore, socially progressive ideas are commonly advocated by social liberals, based on the idea that social practices ought to be continuously adapted in such a manner as to benefit the well-fare of society. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries are to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws.") The struggle between economic freedom and social equality is almost as old as the idea of freedom itself.Plutarch, writing about Solon (c. 639 – c. 559 BCE), the lawgiver of ancient Athens, wrote: Economic liberals see positive rights as necessarily violating negative rights, and therefore illegitimate. They see a limited role for government. Some economic liberals see no proper function of government, while others (minarchists) would limit government to courts, police, and defense against foreign invasion. Social liberals, in contrast, see a major role for government in promoting the general welfare – providing some or all of the following services: food and shelter for those who cannot provide for themselves, medical care, schools, retirement, care for children and for the disabled, including those disabled by old age, help for victims of natural disaster, protection of minorities, prevention of crime, and support for the arts and sciences. This largely abandons the idea of limited government. Both forms of liberalism seek the same end – liberty – but they disagree strongly about the best or most moral means to attain it. Some liberal parties emphasize economic liberalism, while others focus on social liberalism. Conservative parties often favor economic liberalism while opposing social and cultural liberalism. In all of the forms of liberalism listed above there is a general belief that there should be a balance between government and private responsibilities, and that government should be limited to those tasks which cannot be carried out best by the private sector. All forms of liberalism claim to protect the fundamental dignity and autonomy of the individual under law, all claim that freedom of individual action promotes the best society. Liberalism is so widespread in the modern world that most Western nations at least pay lip service to individual liberty as the basis for society. Comparative influences Early Enlightenment thinkers contrasted liberalism with the authoritarianism of the Ancien Régime, feudalism, mercantilism and the Roman Catholic Church. Later, as more radical philosophers articulated their thoughts in the course of the French Revolution and throughout the nineteenth century, liberalism defined itself in contrast to socialism and communism, although modern European liberal parties have often formed coalitions with social-democratic parties. In the 20th century liberalism defined itself in opposition to totalitarianism and collectivism. Some modern liberals have rejected the classical Just War theory, which emphasizes neutrality and free trade, in favor of multilateral interventionism and collective security. Liberalism favors the limitation of government power. Extreme anti-statist liberalism, as advocated by Frederic Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari, Herbert Spencer, and Auberon Herbert, is a radical form of liberalism called anarchism (no state at all) or minarchism (a minimal state, or sometimes called "the nightwatchman state.")The website of the Molinari Institute labels this form as "Market Anarchism". These anti-state forms of liberalism are commonly referred to as libertarianism. Most liberals claim that a government is necessary to protect rights, yet the meaning of "government" can range from simply a rights protection organization to a Weberian state. Recently, liberalism has again come into conflict with those who seek a society ordered by religious values: radical Islamism often rejects liberal thought in its entirety, and radical Christian sects in Western liberal-democratic states — especially the US — often find their moral opinions coming into conflict with liberal laws and ideals. Liberalism and democracy The relationship between liberalism and democracy may be summed up by Winston Churchill's famous remark, "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms..." In short, there is nothing about democracy per se that guarantees freedom rather than a tyranny of the masses. The coinage liberal democracy suggests a more harmonious marriage between the two principles than actually exists.Anthony Alblaster: The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism, New York, Basil Blackwell, 1984, page 353 Liberals strive after the replacement of absolutism by limited government: government by consent. The idea of consent suggests democracy. At the same time, the founders of the first liberal democracies feared mob rule, and so they built into the constitutions of liberal democracies checks and balances intended to limit the power of government by dividing those powers among several branches. For liberals, democracy is not an end in itself, but an essential means to secure liberty, individuality and diversity.compare: Guide de Ruggeiro: The History of European Liberalism, Bacon press, 1954, page 379 Liberalism and radicalism In various countries in Europe and Latin-America the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century show the existence of a radical political tendency next to or as successor of a more doctrinal liberal tendency. In some countries the radical tendency is a variant of liberalism that is less doctrinal and more willing to accept democratic reforms than traditional liberals. In the United Kingdom the Radicals unite with the more traditional liberal Whigs into the Liberal Party. In other countries, these left wing liberals form their own radical parties with various names (e.g. in Switzerland and Germany (the Freisinn), Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain and the NetherlandsSee for more information the Liberale und radikale Parteien in Klaus von Beyme: Parteien in westlichen Demokratien, München, 1982 but also Argentina and Chile.Compare page 255 and further in the Guide to the Political Parties of South America (Pelican Books, 1973 This doesn't mean that all radical parties were formed by left wing liberals. In the French political literature it is normal to make clear separation between liberalism and radicalism in France. In Serbia liberalism and radicalism had and have almost nothing in common. But even the French radicals were aligned to the international liberal movement in the first half of the twentieth century, in the Entente Internationale des Partis Radicaux et des Partis Démocratiques similaires''See page 1 and further of A sense of liberty, by Julie Smith, published by the Liberal International in 1997. Liberalism and the great depression Despite some dispute whether there was an actual laissez-faire capitalist state in existence at the time http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf, the Great Depression of the 1930s shook public faith in "laissez-faire capitalism" and "the profit motive," leading many to conclude that the unregulated markets could not produce prosperity and prevent poverty. Many liberals were troubled by the political instability and restrictions on liberty that they believed were caused by the growing relative inequality of wealth. Key liberals of this persuasion, such as John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued for the creation of a more elaborate state apparatus to serve as the bulwark of individual liberty, permitting the continuation of capitalism while protecting the citizens against its perceived excesses. Some liberals, including Hayek, whose work ''The Road to Serfdom remains influential, argued against these institutions, believing the Great Depression and Second World War to be individual events, that, once passed, did not justify a permanent change in the role of government. Key liberal thinkers, such as Lujo Brentano, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, John Maynard Keynes, Bertil Ohlin and John Dewey, described how a government should intervene in the economy to protect liberty while avoiding socialism. These liberals developed the theory of modern liberalism (also "new liberalism," not to be confused with present-day neoliberalism). Modern liberals rejected both radical capitalism and the revolutionary elements of the socialist school. John Maynard Keynes, in particular, had a significant impact on liberal thought throughout the world. The Liberal Party in Britain, particularly since Lloyd George's People's Budget, was heavily influenced by Keynes, as was the Liberal International, the Oxford Liberal Manifesto of 1947 of the world organization of liberal parties. In the United States, the influence of Keynesianism on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal has led modern liberalism to be identified with American liberalism and Canadian Liberalism. Other liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market. In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he elucidated government regulation that occurred before the great depression including heavy regulations upon banks that prevented them, he argued, from reacting to the markets' demand for money. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. This pegged value created a massive surplus of gold, but later the pegged value was too low which created a massive migration of gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand created a run on the banks that the banks were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the Great Depression by creating, and then not fixing, deflationary pressures. He further argued in this thesis, that the government inflicted more pain upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class. Only in 1974 was Hayek awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for, among other reasons, his theory of business cycles and his conception of the effects of monetary and credit policies and for being "one of the few economists who gave warning of the possibility of a major economic crisis before the great crash came in the autumn of 1929." http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/press.html Liberalism against totalitarianism In the mid-20th century, liberalism began to define itself in opposition to totalitarianism. The term was first used by Giovanni Gentile to describe the socio-political system set up by Mussolini. Stalin would apply it to German Nazism, and after the war it became a descriptive term for what liberalism considered the common characteristics of fascist, Nazi and Marxist-Leninist regimes. Totalitarian regimes sought and tried to implement absolute centralized control over all aspects of society, in order to achieve prosperity and stability. These governments often justified such absolutism by arguing that the survival of their civilization was at risk. Opposition to totalitarian regimes acquired great importance in liberal and democratic thinking, and they were often portrayed as trying to destroy liberal democracy. On the other hand, the opponents of liberalism strongly objected to the classification that unified mutually hostile fascist and communist ideologies and considered them fundamentally different. In Italy and Germany, nationalist governments linked corporate capitalism to the state, and promoted the idea that their nations were culturally and racially superior, and that conquest would give them their "rightful" place in the world. The propaganda machines of these countries argued that democracy was weak and incapable of decisive action, and that only a strong leader could impose necessary discipline. In Soviet Union, the ruling communists banned private property, claiming to act for the sake of economic and social justice, and the government had full control over the planned economy. The regime insisted that personal interests be linked and inferior to those of the society, of class, which was ultimately an excuse for persecuting both oppositions as well as dissidents within the communists ranks as well as arbitrary use of severe penal code. The rise of totalitarianism became a lens for liberal thought. Many liberals began to analyze their own beliefs and principles, and came to the conclusion that totalitarianism arose because people in a degraded condition turn to dictatorships for solutions. From this, it was argued that the state had the duty to protect the economic well being of its citizens. As Isaiah Berlin said, "Freedom for the wolves means death for the sheep." This growing body of liberal thought argued that reason requires a government to act as a balancing force in economics. Other liberal interpretations on the rise of totalitarianism were quite contrary to the growing body of thought on government regulation in supporting the market and capitalism. This included Friedrich Hayek's work, The Road to Serfdom. He argued that the rise of totalitarian dictatorships was the result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market which caused loss of political and civil freedoms. Hayek also saw these economic controls being instituted in the United Kingdom and the United States and warned against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments "Keynesians liberals" were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch; all of which sought the elimination or reduction of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus Hayek believes the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. One of the most influential critics of totalitarianism was Karl Popper. In The Open Society and Its Enemies he defended liberal democracy and advocated open society, in which the government can be changed without bloodshed. Popper argued that the process of the accumulation of human knowledge is unpredictable and that the theory of ideal government cannot possibly exist. Therefore, the political system should be flexible enough so that governmental policy would be able to evolve and adjust to the needs of the society; in particular, it should encourage Pluralism and multiculturalism. Liberalism after World War II In much of the West, expressly liberal parties were caught between "conservative" parties on one hand, and "labor" or social democratic parties on the other hand. For example, the UK Liberal Party became a minor party. The same process occurred in a number of other countries, as the social democratic parties took the leading role in the Left, while pro-business conservative parties took the leading role in the Right. The post-war period saw the dominance of modern liberalism. Linking modernism and progressivism to the notion that a populace in possession of rights and sufficient economic and educational means would be the best defense against totalitarian threats, the liberalism of this period took the stance that by enlightened use of liberal institutions, individual liberties could be maximized, and self-actualization could be reached by the broad use of technology. Liberal writers in this period include economist John Kenneth Galbraith, philosopher John Rawls and sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf. A dissenting strain of thought developed that viewed any government involvement in the economy as a betrayal of liberal principles. Calling itself "libertarianism," this movement was centered around such schools of thought as Austrian Economics. The debate between personal liberty and social optimality occupies much of the theory of liberalism since the Second World War, particularly centering around the questions of social choice and market mechanisms required to produce a "liberal" society. One of the central parts of this argument concerns Kenneth Arrow's General Possibility Theorem. This thesis states that there is no consistent social choice function which satisfies unbounded decision making, independence of choices, Pareto optimality, and non-dictatorship. In short, according to the thesis which includes the problem of liberal paradox, it is not possible to have unlimited liberty, a maximum amount of utility, and an unlimited range of choices at the same time. Another important argument within liberalism is the importance of rationality in decision making – whether the liberal state is best based on rigorous procedural rights or whether it should be rooted in substantial equality. One important liberal debate concerns whether people have positive rights as members of communities in addition to being protected from wrongs done by others. For many liberals, the answer is "yes": individuals have positive rights based on being members of a national, political, or local unit, and can expect protection and benefits from these associations. Members of a community have a right to expect that their community will to a certain degree regulate the economy since rising and falling economic circumstances cannot be controlled by the individual. If individuals have a right to participate in a public capacity, then they have a right to expect education and social protections against discrimination from other members of that public. Other liberals would answer "no": individuals have no such rights as members of communities, for such rights conflict with the more fundamental "negative" rights of other members of the community. After the 1970s, the liberal pendulum had swung away from increasing the role of government, and towards a greater use of the free market and laissez-faire principles. In essence, many of the old pre-World War I ideas were making a comeback. In part this was a reaction to the triumphalism of the dominant forms of liberalism of the time, but as well it was rooted in a foundation of liberal philosophy, particularly suspicion of the state, whether as an economic or philosophical actor. Even liberal institutions could be misused to restrict rather than promote liberty. Increasing emphasis on the free market emerged with Milton Friedman in the United States, and with members of the Austrian School in Europe. Their argument was that regulation and government involvement in the economy was a slippery slope, that any would lead to more, and that more was difficult to remove. Contemporary liberalism The impact of liberalism on the modern world is profound. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, "enlightened" and "rational" policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade were all radical notions some 250 years ago. Liberal democracy, in its typical form of multiparty political pluralism, has spread to much of the world. Today all are accepted as the goals of policy in most nations, even if there is a wide gap between statements and reality. They are not only the goals of liberals, but also of social democrats, conservatives, and Christian Democrats. There is, of course, opposition. Overview of political positions of contemporary liberal parties. Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide.) One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe.See for example Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1962: Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston. See for a similar view Jamie F. Metzl: In the same "Liberalism" as the term is used in America today is not used in the "older, European sense, but has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state in [http://www.theihs.org/pdf/materials/513.pdf The Rise of Illiberal Democracy] by Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December, 1997, Vol 76, No. 6 In the US, liberalism is usually understood to refer to modern liberalism, as contrasted with conservatism. American liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare state, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual and religious tolerance, and thus more readily embrace Pluralism, and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats. Before an explanation of this subject proceeds, it is important to add this disclaimer: There is always a disconnect between philosophical ideals and political realities. Also, opponents of any belief are apt to describe that belief in different terms from those used by adherents. What follows is a record of those goals that overtly appear most consistently across major liberal manifestos (e.g., the Oxford Manifesto of 1947). It is not an attempt to catalogue the idiosyncratic views of particular persons, parties, or countries, nor is it an attempt to investigate any covert goals, since both are beyond the scope of this article. Freedom Most political parties which identify themselves as liberal claim to promote the rights and responsibilities of the individual, free choice within an open competitive process, the free market, and the dual responsibility of the state to protect the individual citizen and guarantee their liberty. Critics of liberal parties tend to state liberal policies in different terms. Economic freedom may lead to gross inequality. Free speech may lead to speech that is obscene, blasphemous, or treasonous. The role of the state as promoter of freedom and as protector of its citizens may come into conflict. Democracy Liberalism stresses the importance of representative liberal democracy as the best form of government. Elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the majority. Liberals are in favour of a pluralist system in which differing political and social views, even extreme or fringe views, compete for political power on a democratic basis and have the opportunity to achieve power through periodically held elections. They stress the resolution of differences by peaceful means within the bounds of democratic or lawful processes. Many liberals seek ways to increase the involvement and participation of citizens in the democratic process. Some liberals favour direct democracy instead of representative democracy. Civil rights Liberalism advocates civil rights for all citizens: the protection and privileges of personal liberty extended to all citizens equally by law. It includes the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, gender and class. Liberals are divided over the extent to which positive rights are to be included, such as the right to food, shelter, and education. Critics from an internationalist human rights school of thought argue that the civil rights advocated in the liberal view are not extended to all people, but are limited to citizens of particular states. Unequal treatment on the basis of nationality is therefore possible, especially in regard to citizenship itself. Rule of law The rule of law and equality before the law are fundamental to liberalism. Government authority may only be legitimately exercised in accordance with laws that are adopted through an established procedure. Another aspect of the rule of law is an insistence upon the guarantee of an independent judiciary, whose political independence is intended to act as a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. The rule of law includes concepts such as the presumption of innocence, no double jeopardy, and Habeas Corpus. Rule of law is seen by liberals as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of government. In the penal system, liberals in general reject punishments they see as inhumane, including capital punishmentSee for example the Oxford Manifesto 1997 of the Liberal International. Neutral government Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine personal values. As John Rawls put it, "The state has no right to determine a particular conception of the good life". In the United States this neutrality is expressed in the Declaration of Independence as the right to the pursuit of happiness. Both in Europe and in the United States, liberals often support the pro-choice movement and advocate equal rights for women and homosexuals. Equality Racism is incompatible with liberalism. Liberals in Europe are generally hostile to any attempts by the state to enforce equality in employment by legal action against employers, whereas in the United States many liberals favor such affirmative action. Liberals in general support equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome. Most European liberal parties do not favour employment quotas for women and ethnic minorities as the best way to end gender and racial inequality. However, all agree that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race or gender is morally wrong. Free market Economic liberals today stress the importance of a free market and free trade, and seek to limit government intervention in both the domestic economy and foreign trade. Modern liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain some skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. In the post-war consensus on the welfare state in Europe, liberals supported government responsibility for health, education, and alleviating poverty while still calling for a market based on independent exchange. Liberals agree that a high quality of health care and education should be available for all citizens, but differ in their views on the degree to which governments should supply these benefits. Since poverty is a threat to personal liberty, liberalism seeks a balance between individual responsibility and community responsibility. In particular, liberals favor special protection for the handicapped, the sick, the disabled, and the aged.Oxford Manifesto, 1947 European liberalism turned back to more laissez-faire policies in the 1980s and 1990s, and supported privatisation and liberalisation in health care and other public sectors. Modern European liberals generally tend to believe in a smaller role for government than would be supported by most social democrats, let alone socialists or communists. The European liberal consensus appears to involve a belief that economies should be decentralized. In general, contemporary European liberals do not believe that the government should directly control any industrial production through state owned enterprises, which places them in opposition to social democrats. Environment Many liberals share values with environmentalists, such as the Green Party. They seek to minimize the damage done by the human species on the natural world, and to maximize the regeneration of damaged areas. Some such activists attempt to make changes on an economic level by acting together with businesses, but others favor legislation in order to achieve sustainable development. Other liberals do not accept government regulation in this matter and argue that the market should regulate itself in some fashion. International relations There is no consensus about liberal doctrine in international politics, though there are some central notions, which can be deduced from, for example, the opinions of Liberal International.Liberal International > The International Social liberals often believe that war can be abolished. Some favor internationalism, and support the United Nations. Economic liberals, on the other hand, favor non-interventionism rather than collective security. Liberals believe in the right of every individual to enjoy the essential human liberties, and support self-determination for national minorities. Essential also is the free exchange of ideas, news, goods and services between people, as well as freedom of travel within and between all countries. Liberals generally oppose censorship, protective trade barriers, and exchange regulations. Some liberals were among the strongest advocates of international co-operation and the building of supra-national organizations, such as the European Union. In the view of social liberals, a global free and fair market can only work if companies worldwide respect a set of common minimal social and ecological standards. A controversial question, on which there is no liberal consensus, is immigration. Do nations have a right to limit the flow of immigrants from countries with growing populations to countries with stable or declining populations? Conservative liberalism and Liberal conservatism Conservative liberalism represents the right-wing of the liberal movement, stressing much on economic issues and combining some conservative elements. Examples include the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy in the Netherlands, the Liberal Party of Denmark and, in some ways, the Free Democratic Party of Germany. Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism which includes some liberal elements. This strain often emerged in countries with strong socialist and/or labour parties, and is often strongly influenced by the writings of Edmund Burke. Examples include the Reform Party of Canada/Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Front Party (Brazil), the Moderate Party (Sweden), Forza Italia, Civic Platform (Poland), the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, National Renewal in Chile, and the Liberal Party of Australia. These parties are mainly member of the International Democratic Union, not of the Liberal International. Liberal international relations theory "Liberalism" in international relations is a theory that holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ("high politics"), but also economic/cultural ("low politics") whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of a country's films leading to the popularity of its culture and the creation of a market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence – thus peace can be achieved. Liberalism as an international relations theory is not inherently linked to liberalism as a more general domestic political ideology. Increasingly, modern liberals are integrating critical international relations theory into their foreign policy positions. Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is a label for some economic liberal doctrines. The swing away from government action in the 1970s led to the introduction of this term, which refers to a program of reducing trade barriers and internal market restrictions, while using government power to enforce opening of foreign markets. Neoliberalism accepts a certain degree of government involvement in the domestic economy, particularly a central bank with the power to print fiat money. This is strongly opposed by libertarians. While neoliberalism is sometimes described as overlapping with Thatcherism, economists as diverse as Joseph Stiglitz and Milton Friedman have been described — by others — as "neoliberal". This economic agenda is not necessarily combined with a liberal agenda in politics: neoliberals often do not subscribe to individual liberty on ethical issues or in sexual mores. An extreme example was the Pinochet regime in Chile, but some also classify Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and even Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder as being neo-liberal. It should be noted that, in the 1990s, many social democratic parties adopted "neoliberal" economic policies such as privatization of industry and open markets, much to the dismay of many of their own voters. This has led these parties to become de facto neoliberal, and has often resulted in a drastic loss of popular support. For example, critics to the left of the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party accuse them of pursuing neoliberal policies by refusing to renationalise industry. As a result of this, much support for these parties has been lost to the Christian Democratic Union and the Liberal Democrats, respectively. This "adopting of the wolves clothes" has led Labour in the UK to spectacular electoral success. However, tensions between the executive and Labour's backbenches is a consistent issue. Sometimes "Neoliberalism" is used as a catch-all term for the anti-socialist reaction which swept through some countries during the period between the 70s and 90s. "Neoliberalism" in the form of Thatcher, Reagan, and Pinochet claimed to move from a bureaucratic welfare-based society toward a meritocracy acting in the interests of business. In actuality, these governments cut funding for education and taxed income more heavily than wealth, which increased the influence of big business and the upper class. Some conservatives see themselves as the true inheritors of classical liberalism. Jonah Goldberg of National Review argues that "most conservatives are closer to classical liberals than a lot of ''Reason''-libertarians" because conservatives want to preserve some institutions that they see as needed for liberty.Jonah Goldberg, The Libertarian Lie National Review Online, December 18 2001. Further confusing the classification of liberalism and conservatism is that some conservatives claim liberal values as their own. Criticism and defense of Liberalism Collectivist opponents of liberalism reject its emphasis on individual rights, and instead emphasize the collective or the community to a degree where the rights of the individual are either diminished or abolished. Collectivism can be found both to the right and to the left of liberalism. On the left, the collective that tends to be enhanced is the state, often in the form of state socialism. On the right, conservative and religious opponents argue that liberalism has removed the traditional mores that informally regulated societies, replacing them with abstract and idealistic principles which are imposed by the liberal-dominated schools, media, courts and bureaucracy. Opponents like Theodore Dalrymple claim that these new principles have actually undermined the concepts of self control and personal responsibility which are vital to any functional society. The liberal answer to this is that it is not the purpose of the law to legislate morality, but to protect the citizen from harm. However, conservatives often see the legislation of morality as an essential aspect of protecting citizens from harm. Anti-statist critiques of liberalism, such as anarchism, assert the illegitimacy of the state for any purposes. A softer critique of liberalism can be found in communitarianism, which emphasizes a return to communities without necessarily denigrating individual rights. Beyond these clear theoretical differences, some liberal principles can be disputed in a piecemeal fashion, with some portions kept and others abandoned (see Liberal democracy and Neoliberalism.) This ongoing process – where putatively liberal agents accept some traditionally liberal values and reject others – causes some critics to question whether or not the word "liberal" has any useful meaning at all. In terms of international politics, the universal claims of human rights which liberalism tends to endorse are disputed by rigid adherents of non-interventionism, since intervention in the interests of human rights can conflict with the sovereignty of nations. By contrast, World federalists criticize liberalism for its adherence to the doctrine of sovereign nation-states, which the World federalists believe is not helpful in the face of genocide and other mass human rights abuses. Liberalism has also been accused of being non-political in the works of some critics, for instance in "Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics" by Francis Parker Yockey: Liberalism, however, with its compromising, vague attitude, incapable of precise formulation, incapable also of rousing precise feelings, either affirmative or negative, is not an idea of political force. Its numerous devotees, in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries have taken part in practical politics only as the ally of other groups.Francis Parker Yockey, "Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics", 1948, p. 207 Left-leaning opponents of economic liberalism reject the view that the private sector can act for the collective benefit, citing the harm done to those individuals who lose out in competition. They oppose the use of the state to impose market principles, usually through an enforced market mechanism in a previously non-market sector. They argue that the dominance of liberal principles in economy and society has contributed to inequality among states, and inequality within states. They argue that liberal societies are characterised by long-term poverty, and by ethnic and class differentials in health, by (infant) mortality and lower life expectancy. Some would even say they have much higher unemployment than centrally planned economies. A response to these claims is that liberal states tend to be wealthier than less free states, that the poor in liberal states are better off than the average citizen in non-liberal states, and that inequality is a necessary spur to the hard work that produces prosperity. Throughout history, poverty has been the common lot of mankind, and it is only the progress of science and the rise of the modern industrial state that has brought prosperity to large numbers of people. Liberalism and social democracy Liberalism shares many basic goals and methods with social democracy, but in some places diverges. The fundamental difference between liberalism and social democracy is disagreement over the role of the state in the economy. Social democracy can be understood to combine features from both social liberalism and democratic socialism. Democratic socialism seeks to achieve some minimum equality of outcome. Democratic socialists support a large public sector and the nationalization of utilities such as gas and electricity in order to avoid private monopolies, achieve social justice, and raise the standard of living. By contrast, liberalism, in its distrust of monopolies (both public and private), prefers much less state intervention, choosing for example subsidies and regulation rather than outright nationalization. Liberalism also emphasizes equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome, citing the desire for a meritocracy. American liberalism, in contrast to liberalism in most countries, never took a major focus on socialism nor ever demanded the same social welfare state programs as its European counterparts. Today, the United States does not share the welfare state programs applied in most of Europe and has implemented fewer social programs to aid those in the lower socioeconomic level than Canada and Australia. See also *Conservatism *Ethicism *Anarchism *Anarcho-capitalism *Libertarianism *Socialism *Communism *Market liberalism *John Locke's theory of consciousness as the basis of personal identity *Environmentalism *Freiwirtschaft *Modern liberalism *Neoliberalism *Methodological Individualist *Localism (Political Philosophy) *Ordoliberalism *Small-l liberal *Left-wing politics *Social liberalism *Anders Chydenius *Christian left *Progressive Christianity *Classical liberalism *Political Correctness *Liberal democracy *Liberal autocracy *Marriage gap References Notes Other references * Michael Scott Christofferson "An Antitotalitarian History of the French Revolution: François Furet's Penser la Révolution française in the Intellectual Politics of the Late 1970s" (in French Historical Studies, Fall 1999) * Piero Gobetti La Rivoluzione liberale. Saggio sulla lotta politica in Italia, Bologna, Rocca San Casciano, 1924 Further reading :Literature by thinkers contributing to liberal theory is listed at Contributions to liberal theory. *Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B., & Abramowitz, C. V. (1975). Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review: Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 5(3) Jul-Sep 1975, 187-200. *Ajami, J. (2005). Lebanese Elections 2005 Version: Land Liberation or Mind Liberation? : American Behavioral Scientist Vol 49(4) Dec 2005, 634-639. *Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007). Personal, interpersonal, and political temperaments: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol 614(1) Nov 2007, 196-212. *Anderson, J. E. (1951). Review of The nature-nurture controversy: Psychological Bulletin Vol 48(3) May 1951, 273-275. *Athens, L. H. (1975). Differences in the liberal-conservative political attitudes of prison guards and felons: International Journal of Group Tensions Vol 5(3) Sep 1975, 143-155. *Baer, D. J. (1973). Attitudes about marijuana and political views: Psychological Reports Vol 32(3, Pt 2) Jun 1973, 1051-1054. *Barker, D. C. (1998). The talk radio community: Nontraditional social networks and political participation: Social Science Quarterly Vol 79(2) Jun 1998, 261-272. *Bay, C. (1988). After liberalism and nationalism: Toward a humanist theory of political obligation. Middletown, CT, England: Wesleyan University Press. *Bayer, R. (1974). Repression, reform and drug abuse: An analysis of the response to the Rockefeller drug law proposals of 1973: Journal of Psychedelic Drugs Vol 6(3) Jul-Sep 1974, 299-309. *Bayer, R. (1978). Heroin addiction, criminal culpability, and the penal sanction: The liberal response to repressive social policy: Crime & Delinquency Vol 24(2) Apr 1978, 221-232. *Bortz, J., & Braune, P. (1980). The effects of daily newspapers on their readers: Exemplary presentation of a study and its results: European Journal of Social Psychology Vol 10(2) Apr-Jun 1980, 165-193. *Bovier, E., & Boehnke, K. (1999). Do liberal teachers produce violent and xenophobic students? An empirical study of German ninth graders and their teachers: Teaching and Teacher Education Vol 15(7) Oct 1999, 815-827. *Boyd, R. E., Mockaitis, J. P., & Hedges, N. A. (1973). Socio-political liberalism in three adolescent samples: Adolescence Vol 8(32) Win 1973, 455-462. *Boyte, H. C. (2003). Civic Education and the New American Patriotism Post-9/11: Cambridge Journal of Education Vol 33(1) Mar 2003, 85-100. *Braungart, M. M., & Braungart, R. G. (1990). The life-course development of left- and right-wing youth activist leaders from the 1960s: Political Psychology Vol 11(2) Jun 1990, 243-282. *Braungart, M. M., & Braungart, R. G. (1990). Studying youth politics: A reply to Flacks: Political Psychology Vol 11(2) Jun 1990, 293-307. *Brenner, S., & Arrington, T. S. (1987). Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes: Political Behavior Vol 9(1) 1987, 75-86. *Brint, S. (1984). "New-class" and cumulative trend explanations of the liberal political attitudes of professionals: American Journal of Sociology Vol 90(1) Jul 1984, 30-71. *Brody, C. J. (1986). Things are rarely black and white: Admitting gray into the converse model of attitude stability: American Journal of Sociology Vol 92(3) Nov 1986, 657-677. *Brower, B. (2002). Story of the eye: Fantasy of the orgy and its limit: American Imago Vol 59(1) Spr 2002, 73-89. *Browning, D., & Marquardt, E. (2007). Liberal Cautions on Same-Sex Marriage. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. *Bulkeley, K. (2006). Sleep and Dream Patterns of Political Liberals and Conservatives: Dreaming Vol 16(3) Sep 2006, 223-235. *Byrne, D., & Przybyla, D. P. (1980). Authoritarianism and political preferences in 1980: Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society Vol 16(6) Dec 1980, 471-472. *Caditz, J. (1975). Ambivalence toward integration: The sequence of response to six interracial situations: Sociological Quarterly Vol 16(1) Win 1975, 16-32. *Carmines, E. G., & Berkman, M. (1994). Ethos, ideology, and partisanship: Exploring the paradox of conservative Democrats: Political Behavior Vol 16(2) Jun 1994, 203-218. *Cavicchi, M. A. (1977). Liberal theories of representation and the women's movement: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Centers, R., Gilhousen, H. C., Holland, G. A., Coleman, J. C., Bugental, J. F. T., Fearing, F., et al. (1951). Replies to Sell's Question, "How Far Left is the APA Going?" American Psychologist Vol 6(8) Aug 1951, 454-455. *Cheshire, L., & Lawrence, G. (2005). Neoliberalism, Individualisation and Community: Regional Restructuring in Australia: Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture Vol 11(5) Sep 2005, 435-445. *Cindoglu, D., Boynukara, A., Akyuz, S., & Bekaroglu, E. A. (2007). An action research report on the rising democracy discourse in 2000's Turkey: Does Eros contour the demos? : Women's Studies International Forum Vol 30(6) Nov-Dec 2007, 465-473. *Clouse, B. (1985). Moral reasoning and Christian faith: Journal of Psychology & Theology Vol 13(3) Fal 1985, 190-198. *Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (2004). The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications. New York, NY: Psychology Press. *Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. (2004). The Elusive Ideal of Equal Citizenship: Political Theory and Political Psychology in the United States and Great Britain: Journal of Politics Vol 66(4) Nov 2004, 1036-1068. *Costantini, E., & Craik, K. H. (1980). Personality and politicians: California party leaders, 1960-1976: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 38(4) Apr 1980, 641-661. *Crain, W. C., & Crain, E. F. (1976). Age trends in political thinking: Dissent, voting, and the distribution of wealth: Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Vol 92(2) Mar 1976, 179-190. *Dahlberg, L. (2001). Democracy via cyberspace: Mapping the rhetorics and practices of three prominent camps: New Media & Society Vol 3(2) Jun 2001, 157-177. *Dalmis, I., & Imanoglu, E. O. (2000). Perceived socio-political identities of Turkish adults and university students: Turk Psikoloji Dergisi Vol 15(46) 2000, 1-18. *Davis, J. A. (1992). Changeable weather in a cooling climate atop the liberal plateau: Conversion and replacement in forty-two General Social Survey items, 1972-1989: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 56(3) Fal 1992, 261-306. *delli Carpini, M. X., & Sigelman, L. (1986). Do yuppies matter? Competing explanations of their political distinctiveness: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 50(4) Win 1986, 502-518. *Dittmar, H., & Dickinson, J. (1993). The perceived relationship between the belief in a just world and sociopolitical ideology: Social Justice Research Vol 6(3) Sep 1993, 257-272. *Duggan, L. (2006). Queering the State. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. *Dunlap, R. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions: Environment and Behavior Vol 7(4) Dec 1975, 428-454. *Dupras, A., & Tremblay, R. (1977). The new medical generation: Results of a poll among medical students on sex and politics: Vie medicale au Canada francais Vol 6(2) Feb 1977, 205-208, 210. *Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1976). The relation of political attitude to constraint-oriented and prosocial moral reasoning: Developmental Psychology Vol 12(6) Nov 1976, 552-553. *Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1979). Relationship of Prosocial Moral Reasoning to Altruism, Political Liberalism, and Intelligence: Developmental Psychology Vol 15(1) Jan 1979, 87-89. *Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Mussen, P. (1980). Personality correlates of sociopolitical liberalism and conservatism in adolescents: Journal of Genetic Psychology Vol 137(2) Dec 1980, 165-177. *Eisenman, R., & Sirgo, H. B. (1993). Racial attitudes and voting behavior in the 1988 national elections: Liberals versus conservatives: Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society Vol 31(4) Jul 1993, 268-270. *Eisler, R., & Loye, D. (1983). The "failure" of liberalism: A reassessment of ideology from a new feminine-masculine perspective: Political Psychology Vol 4(2) Jun 1983, 375-391. *Enyedi, Z., & Todosijevic, B. (2003). Organization of mass political attitudes in Hungary: Polish Psychological Bulletin Vol 34(1) 2003, 15-26. *Evans, J. H. (2006). Cooperative coalitions on the religious right and left: Considering the resilience of sectarianism: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol 45(2) Jun 2006, 195-215. *Eysenck, H. J. (1981). Left-wing authoritarianism: Myth or reality? : Political Psychology Vol 3(1-2) Spr-Sum 1981-1982, 234-238. *Faia, M. A. (1974). The myth of the liberal professor: Sociology of Education Vol 47(2) Spr 1974, 171-202. *Farley, F. H., & Farley, S. V. (1974). Birth order and political orientation in college women: Psychological Reports Vol 34(3, Pt 2) Jun 1974, 1045-1046. *Farley, F. H., Nelson, J. G., Knight, W. G., & Garcia-Colberg, E. (1977). Sex, politics, and personality: A multidimensional study of college students: Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol 6(2) Mar 1977, 105-119. *Ferdinand, T. N. (1964). Psychological femininity and political liberalism: Sociometry 27(1) 1964, 75-87. *Finney, H. C. (1974). Political dimensions of college impact on civil-libertarianism and the integration of political perspective: A longitudinal analysis: Sociology of Education Vol 47(2) Spr 1974, 214-250. *Flacks, R. (1990). Social bases of activist identity: Comment on Braungart article: Political Psychology Vol 11(2) Jun 1990, 283-292. *Fleishman, J. A. (1988). Attitude organization in the general public: Evidence for a bidimensional structure: Social Forces Vol 67(1) Sep 1988, 159-184. *Forrest, P. A. (1991). Liberal and radical dimensions of political feminism: An application of the rational-empirical method of test construction: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Forrest, P. A. (1992). Liberal and radical dimensions of political feminism: An application of the rational-empirical method of test construction: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Fournier, V. (2002). Utopianism and the cultivation of possibilities: Grassroots movements of hope. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. *Francia, P. L., Green, J. C., Herrnson, P. S., Powell, L. W., & Wilcox, C. (2005). Limousine liberals and corporate conservatives: The financial constituencies of the democratic and republican parties: Social Science Quarterly Vol 86(4) Dec 2005, 761-778. *Freeman, C. (2007). Neoliberalism and the marriage of reputation and respectability: Entrepreneurship and the Barbadian middle class: Padilla, Mark B (Ed); Hirsch, Jennifer S (Ed); Munoz-Laboy, Miguel (Ed); Sember, Robert (Ed); Parker, Richard G (Ed). *Furnham, A., & Heaven, P. C. (1988). The paradox of socialism: The relationship between social and economic political beliefs: Psychological Reports Vol 62(1) Feb 1988, 327-332. *Gaffie, B., Marchand, P., & Cassagne, J.-M. (1997). Effect of political position on group perception: European Journal of Social Psychology Vol 27(2) Mar-Apr 1997, 177-187. *Gans, H. J. (1993). Hollywood entertainment: Commerce or ideology? : Social Science Quarterly Vol 74(1) Mar 1993, 150-153. *Garner, S. (2007). Ireland and immigration: Explaining the absence of the far right: Patterns of Prejudice Vol 41(2) May 2007, 109-130. *Gattino, S., & Roccato, M. (1999). Sensitivity of right-wingers, sensitivity of left-wingers: An investigation of university students: Psicologia Politica No 19 Nov 1999, 23-33. *Gerring, J., & Thacker, S. C. (2005). Do Neoliberal Policies Deter Political Corruption? : International Organization Vol 59(1) Win 2005, 233-254. *Gerson, G. (2005). Individuality, deliberation and welfare in Donald Winnicott: History of the Human Sciences Vol 18(1) Feb 2005, 107-126. *Getz, I. R. (1986). Moral reasoning, religion, and attitudes toward human rights: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Gilstein, K. W., Wright, E. W., & Stone, D. R. (1977). The effects of leadership style on group interactions in differing socio-political subcultures: Small Group Behavior Vol 8(3) Aug 1977, 313-331. *Gitlitz, A. H. (1973). Political ideology, dogmatism, and the attitudes of history teachers toward Afro-American history: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Glaser, J. M. (2001). The preference puzzle: Educational differences in racial-political attitudes: Political Behavior Vol 23(4) Dec 2001, 313-334. *Glassman, M., & Karno, D. (2007). Ideology as instrument: American Psychologist Vol 62(9) Dec 2007, 1075-1076. *Golebiowska, E. A. (1995). Individual value priorities, education, and political tolerance: Political Behavior Vol 17(1) Mar 1995, 23-48. *Good, L. R., & Good, K. C. (1976). A conservatism-liberalism scale: Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior Vol 13(2) May 1976, 24-25. *Goodnight, L. J. (1994). The conservative voice of a liberal president: An analysis of Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam rhetoric. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. *Granberg, D., & Robertson, C. (1982). Contrast effects in estimating policies of the federal government: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 46(1) Spr 1982, 43-53. *Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992). Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one's worldview? : Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 63(2) Aug 1992, 212-220. *Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals: Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 31(1) Jan 2001, 191-221. *Hammond, J. L. (1986). Yuppies: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 50(4) Win 1986, 487-501. *Hanson, D. J. (1969). Dogmatism among authoritarians of the right and the left: Psychological Studies Vol 14(1) Jan 1969, 12-21. *Hanson, D. J. (1970). Dogmatism and political ideology: Journal of Human Relations Vol 18(3) 1970, 995-1002. *Hanson, D. J. (1984). Liberal-conservative bias in the Dogmatism Scale: Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior Vol 21(1) 1984, 7-8. *Hansson, R. O., Keating, J. P., & Terry, C. (1974). The effects of mandatory time limits in the voting booth on liberal-conservative voting patterns: Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 4(4) Oct-Dec 1974, 336-342. *Harris, S. (2005). Rethinking academic identities in neo-liberal times: Teaching in Higher Education Vol 10(4) Oct 2005, 421-433. *Hartwick, E., & Peet, R. (2003). Neoliberalism and nature: The case of the WTO: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol 590 Nov 2003, 188-211. *Haug, F. (2001). Sexual deregulation or, the child abuser as hero in neoliberalism: Feminist Theory Vol 2(1) Apr 2001, 55-78. *Heaven, P. C. L. (1994). The perceived causal structure of poverty: A network analysis approach: British Journal of Social Psychology Vol 33(3) Sep 1994, 259-271. *Hegger, S., Ryan, B., & Weston, E. (1983). Women, the family, and politics: Issues in Radical Therapy Vol 11(1) 1983, 14-17, 50. *Henderson, J. (1987). Emotions and the left: Issues in Radical Therapy Vol 12(4) 1987, 6-9, 43-44. *Hicks, J. M. (1974). Conservative voting and personality: Social Behavior and Personality Vol 2(1) 1974, 43-49. *Holm, J. D., & Robinson, J. P. (1978). Ideological identification and the American voter: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 42(2) Sum 1978, 235-246. *Hursh, D. (2006). Carry It On: Fighting for Progressive Education in Neoliberal Times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. *Ishiyama, J. T., Wingo, K. T., Arteaga, S. S., & Hernandez, C. M. (2001). Liberal undergraduate education and reasoning styles: Using political scenarios in student assessment: Social Science Journal Vol 38(1) 2001, 125-135. *Johnson, D. R., & Scheuble, L. K. (2002). What should we call our kids? Choosing children's surnames when parents' last names differ: Social Science Journal Vol 39(3) 2002, 419-429. *Jost, J. T. (2006). The End of the End of Ideology: American Psychologist Vol 61(7) Oct 2006, 651-670. *Jost, J. T. (2007). Coda--After "The end of the end of ideology." American Psychologist Vol 62(9) Dec 2007, 1077-1080. *Kampf, H. A. (1990). Terrorism, the left wing, and the intellectuals: Terrorism Vol 13(1) Jan-Feb 1990, 23-51. *Karasawa, M. (1998). Eliminating national stereotypes: Direct versus indirect disconfirmation of beliefs in covariation: Japanese Psychological Research Vol 40(2) May 1998, 61-73. *Karpov, V. (2002). Religiosity and tolerance in the United States and Poland: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol 41(2) Jun 2002, 267-288. *Kempeneers, P. (1989). An approach of the leftight continuum as a concept in politics: Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale No 1 Mar 1989, 53-74. *Kiecolt, K. J., & Nelsen, H. M. (1988). The structuring of political attitudes among liberal and conservative Protestants: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol 27(1) Mar 1988, 48-59. *Kilby, J. (2002). Redeeming memories: The politics of trauma and history: Feminist Theory Vol 3(2) Aug 2002, 201-210. *Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. *Kohn, P. M. (1972). The Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale: A balanced F Scale with left-wing reversals: Sociometry Vol 35(1) Mar 1972, 176-189. *Korpi, D. R. (1977). Psychohistorical aspects of shame and guilt as functions of political ideology: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Korten, M. J., & Ziegler, D. J. (1985). Inferred psychological needs as a function of stimulus assigned and subject-expressed political preference: Psychological Reports Vol 56(1) Feb 1985, 211-220. *Kroh, M. (2007). Measuring left-right political orientation: The choice of response format: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 71(2) Sum 2007, 204-220. *Lacey, A. (2005). Spaces of Justice: The Social Divine of Global Anti-Capital Activists' Sites of Resistance: Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology Vol 42(4) Nov 2005, 403-420. *Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. *Lambert, A. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (1997). Perceptions of disadvantage versus conventionality: Political values and attitudes toward the elderly versus Blacks: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Vol 23(5) May 1997, 469-481. *Larrue, J., Bonardi, C., & Roussiau, N. (2000). Study of the links between several objects of social representations: Anuario de Psicologia Vol 31(3) Sep 2000, 19-37. *Lee, A.-R. (2003). Stability and change in Korean values: Social Indicators Research Vol 62-63(1-3) Apr 2003, 93-117. *Lee, T.-T. (2005). The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias: Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media Vol 49(1) Mar 2005, 43-64. *Lerner, M., Zoloth, L., & Riles, W. (1983). Bringing it all back home: A strategy to deal with the Right: Issues in Radical Therapy Vol 11(1) 1983, 8-13, 44-49. *Levasseur, J. B. (1998). Authoritarianism and political orientation: Validation of a left-wing authoritarianism scale. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. *Levenson, H., & Miller, J. (1976). Multidimensional locus of control in sociopolitical activists of conservative and liberal ideologies: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 33(2) Feb 1976, 199-208. *Levin, B. H., & Schalmo, G. B. (1974). Self-rated liberalism is correlated with sensation seeking: Psychological Reports Vol 34(1) Feb 1974, 298. *Li, Q., & Smith, D. L. (2002). The dilemma of financial liberalization: State autonomy and societal demands: Journal of Politics Vol 64(3) Aug 2002, 764-790. *Liebrand, W. B. (1974). An exploratory methodological inquiry contrasting traditional and humanistic methodologies in psycho-politics (Netherlands): Interpersonal Development Vol 5(2) 1974-1975, 94-101. *Linder, F. (1978). Interpersonal perception of values: Further study: Perceptual and Motor Skills Vol 46(2) Apr 1978, 350. *Linder, F., & Bauer, D. (1979). Interpersonal perception of the values Freedom and Equality: Perceptual and Motor Skills Vol 48(1) Feb 1979, 167-170. *Lipset, S. M. (1982). The academic mind at the top: The political behavior and values of faculty elites: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 46(2) Sum 1982, 143-168. *Lister, J. (2006). Review of Unhealthy Health Policy--A Critical Anthropological Examination and Political and Economic Determinants of Population Health and Well-being--Controversies and Developments: Sociology of Health & Illness Vol 28(7) Nov 2006, 992-995. *Lloyd, C. (2003). Anti-racism, racism and asylum-seekers in France: Patterns of Prejudice Vol 37(3) Sep 2003, 323-339. *Lorr, M., & Zea, R. I. (1977). Moral judgment and liberal-conservative attitude: Psychological Reports Vol 40(2) Apr 1977, 627-629. *Mackenzie, C. (1998). Social constructionist political theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. *Mandell, A. J. (1973). Western humanism, modern liberal politics, and psychiatric training: Friends or Foes? : American Journal of Psychiatry Vol 130(5) May 1973, 529-531. *Manning, H. P. (2004). The streets of Bethesda: The slate quarrier and the Welsh language in the Welsh Liberal imagination: Language in Society Vol 33(4) Sep 2004, 517-548. *Marx, W., & Stahli, L. (2001). Subjective structure of Swiss politics: Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie Vol 60(3) Sep 2001, 192-201. *Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1981). Liberalism, environmentalism, and partisanship in public policy-making: The California Coastal Commissions: Environment and Behavior Vol 13(3) May 1981, 361-384. *McComas, W. C. (1973). An informational base interpretation of judges' ratings of opinion statements, attitude change, and the tendency to agree or disagree with an opinion statement: Dissertation Abstracts International Vol. *McFalls, J. A., Jones, B. J., Gallagher, B. J., & Rivera, J. (1985). Political orientation and occupational values of college youth, 1969 and 1981: A shift toward uniformity: Adolescence Vol 20(79) Fal 1985, 697-713. *McHoskey, J. W. (1996). Authoritarianism and ethical ideology: Journal of Social Psychology Vol 136(6) Dec 1996, 709-717. *Merskin, D. (2007). Flagging patriotism: The myth of Old Glory: Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche Vol 1(4) Fal 2007, 11-16. *Message, K. (2007). Museums and the utility of culture: The politics of liberal democracy and cultural well-being: Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture Vol 13(2) Mar 2007, 235-256. *Miller, A. S., & Nakamura, T. (1997). Trends in American public opinion: A cohort analysis of shifting attitudes from 1972-1990: Behaviormetrika Vol 24(2) Jul 1997, 179-191. *Minz, G. (1984). The grownups educate: On the special interest of Leftists in Alice Miller: Udkast Vol 12(2) 1984, 239-258. *Miyamoto, R. H., Johnson, R. C., & Danko, G. P. (1996). Negative events experienced by self and predicted to have been experienced by others as related to political orientation: Personality and Individual Differences Vol 21(1) Jul 1996, 155-157. *Modena, E. (1993). Desperately hopeful: A new Freudian Left reflected in its international congresses: Luzifer-Amor: Zeitschrift zur Geschichte der Psychoanalyse Vol 6(12) 1993, 63-98. *Monaghan, R. R. (1984). Political communication: Etc Vol 41(4) Win 1984, 416-422. *Moreau Ricaud, M. (1998). Freud as translator of J. S. Mill's "The emancipation of women." Topique: Revue Freudienne Vol 28(67) 1998, 127-139. *Mowle, T. S. (2003). Worldviews in foreign policy: Realism, liberalism, and external conflict: Political Psychology Vol 24(3) Sep 2003, 561-592. *Mueller, D. J. (1974). The relationship of political orientation to the values of freedom and equality: Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Vol 86(1) Jan 1974, 105-109. *Mutzner, R. (1993). Ideology and cognition: An attributional comparison of liberal and conservative interpretations of the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Nassi, A. J. (1978). Community control in the hands of the liberal reformer: A reply: Journal of Community Psychology Vol 6(1) Jan 1978, 25-28. *Niven, D., & Zilber, J. (2000). Elite use of racial labels: Ideology and preference for African American or Black: Howard Journal of Communications Vol 11(4) Oct-Dec 2000, 267-277. *Papadopoulos, D. (2003). The ordinary superstition of subjectivity: Liberalism and technostructural violence: Theory & Psychology Vol 13(1) Feb 2003, 73-93. *Parker, M. (2002). Utopia and organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. *Perkins, R. B. (1977). Orthodoxy, illiberality, and religious salience: A test of two models: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Perles, F., Canto, J. M., & San Martin, J. E. (2000). Ideological aspects of attitude toward the popular jury: Boletin de Psicologia (Spain) Vol 66 Mar 2000, 69-82. *Pevehouse, J. C. (2004). Interdependence Theory and the Measurement of International Conflict: Journal of Politics Vol 66(1) Feb 2004, 247-266. *Pollack, D. R. (1973). The effect of need for social approval, political viewpoint, and type of crime on decisions of three-person mock juries: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Polley, R. B. (1983). Dimensions of political reality: Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 13(1) Jan-Feb 1983, 66-77. *Prindle, D. F., & Endersby, J. W. (1993). "Hollywood entertainment: Commerce or ideology?": Reply: Social Science Quarterly Vol 74(1) Mar 1993, 154-156. *Prindle, D. F., & Endersby, J. W. (1993). Hollywood liberalism: Social Science Quarterly Vol 74(1) Mar 1993, 136-149. *Rajnarain. (1986). Psychology of right and left: Indian Journal of Current Psychological Research Vol 1(1) 1986, 1-16. *Rambo, W. W. (1973). Validation of a scale measuring liberal-conservative attitudes: Perceptual and Motor Skills Vol 36(1) Feb 1973, 103-106. *Ray, J. J. (1985). Authoritarianism of the Left revisited: Personality and Individual Differences Vol 6(2) 1985, 271-272. *Ray, J. J. (1985). The psychopathology of the political left: The High School Journal Vol 68(4) Apr-May 1985, 415-423. *Ray, J. J. (1989). The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific: Personality and Individual Differences Vol 10(3) 1989, 331-336. *Ray, J. J., & Najman, J. M. (1988). Capitalism and compassion: A test of Milbrath's environmental theory: Personality and Individual Differences Vol 9(2) 1988, 431-433. *Redding, R. E. (1997). Empirical Psychology Meets the Politics of Family Values: PsycCRITIQUES Vol 42 (12), Dec, 1997. *Redley, M., & Weinberg, D. (2007). Learning disability and the limits of liberal citizenship: Interactional impediments to political empowerment: Sociology of Health & Illness Vol 29(5) Jul 2007, 767-786. *Rich, H. E. (1977). The liberalizing influence of college: Some new evidence: Adolescence Vol 12(46) Sum 1977, 199-211. *Risse, M. (2001). What to make of the Liberal Paradox? : Theory and Decision Vol 50(2) Mar 2001, 169-196. *Rosen, C. V., & Kenny, C. T. (1972). Dogmatism and preference in 1970 Tennessee Senate campaign: Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Vol 82(1) Sep 1972, 171-174. *Rothbart, M. (1973). Perceiving social injustice: Observations on the relationship between liberal attitudes and proximity to social problems: Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 3(4) Oct 1973, 291-302. *Rowland, R. C., & Jones, J. M. (2007). Recasting the American dream and American politics: Barack Obama's keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention: Quarterly Journal of Speech Vol 93(4) Nov 2007, 425-448. *Ryan, L. (2005). Review of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think: Cognitive Linguistics Vol 16(4) 2005, 753-759. *Schiffer, A. J. (2000). I'm not that liberal: Explaining conservative Democratic identification: Political Behavior Vol 22(4) Dec 2000, 293-310. *Schmitt, D. R. (1965). An additudinal correlate of the status congruency of married women: Social Forces 44(2) 1965, 190-195. *Schwartzman, M. (2004). The completeness of public reason: Politics, Philosophy & Economics Vol 3(2) Jun 2004, 191-220. *Sevy, G. (1983). Vitality in an age of apathy: The development of spirited human traits in contemporary American culture: Political Psychology Vol 4(4) Dec 1983, 745-757. *Sharpe, M. (2005). A Few Good Men: Psychoanalysis, Abu Ghraib and (the) American Right: Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society Vol 10(2) Aug 2005, 168-185. *Sheehy, P. P. (2002). The triumph of group therapeutics: Therapy, the social self and liberalism in America, 1910--1960. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. *Sherman, D. K., Nelson, L. D., & Ross, L. D. (2003). Naive Realism and Affirmative Action: Adversaries are More Similar Than They Think: Basic and Applied Social Psychology Vol 25(4) Dec 2003, 275-289. *Shweder, R. A., Minow, M., & Markus, H. R. (2002). Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. *Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1986). Shattered expectations: Public responses to "out-of-character" presidential actions: Political Behavior Vol 8(3) 1986, 262-286. *Silvern, L. E., & Nakamura, C. Y. (1973). An analysis of the relationship between students' political position and the extent to which they deviate from parents' position: Journal of Social Issues Vol 29(4) 1973, 111-132. *Sirgo, H. B. (1976). Personality of political contributors: Ideology and perceptions of bureaucracy: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Sirgo, H. B., & Eisenman, R. (1990). Perceptions of governmental fairness by liberals and conservatives: Psychological Reports 67(3, Pt 2) Dec 1990, 1331-1334. *Sirgo, H. B., & Eisenman, R. (1993). Liberals versus conservatives: Are attitudes toward government related to experiences with government? : Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society Vol 31(2) Mar 1993, 155-157. *Smith, P. W., & Brigham, J. C. (1972). The functional approach to attitude change: An attempt at operationalization: Representative Research in Social Psychology Vol 3(1) May 1972, 73-80. *Steininger, M. (1973). In defense of measuring attitudes: Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Vol 85(1) Sep 1973, 131-136. *Steininger, M., & Capaldi, M. (1972). On the appeal of Rizzo and Longstreth: Psychological Reports Vol 31(1) Aug 1972, 141-142. *Steininger, M., & Lesser, H. (1974). Dogmatism, dogmatism factors, and liberalism-conservatism: Psychological Reports Vol 35(1, Pt 1) Aug 1974, 15-21. *Steininger, M., & Majdanik, D. (1974). Alienation, liberalism-conservatism, and presidential preference: Psychological Reports Vol 34(2) Apr 1974, 382. *Steins, G., & Rudolph, U. (2002). Liberal and conservative ideologies and their perception in the context of prosocial behavior: Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie Vol 33(1) Mar 2002, 35-44. *Stone, W. F. (1980). The myth of left-wing authoritarianism: Political Psychology Vol 2(3-4) Fal-Win 1980, 3-19. *Stone, W. F. (1983). Left and right in personality and ideology: An attempt at clarification: Journal of Mind and Behavior Vol 4(2) Spr 1983, 211-220. *Stone, W. F. (1986). Personality and ideology: Empirical support for Tomkins' Polarity Theory: Political Psychology Vol 7(4) Dec 1986, 689-708. *Stone, W. F., Ommundsen, R., & Williams, S. (1985). The structure of ideology in Norway and the United States: Journal of Social Psychology Vol 125(2) Apr 1985, 169-179. *Stratton, G. M. (1944). Violence between nations; deeper sources; the way of liberation: Psychological Review Vol 51(2) Mar 1944, 85-101. *Subramanian, S. (1994). A Paretian liberal dilemma without collective rationality: Theory and Decision Vol 37(3) Nov 1994, 323-332. *Sugar, J. A., Viney, W., & Rohe, J. (1992). A comparison of contemporary and historical conservatism: Journal of General Psychology Vol 119(1) Jan 1992, 89-97. *Swanke, W. E. (1981). Freud and liberalism: A reappraisal: Dissertation Abstracts International. *Takooshian, H., & Rieber, R. W. (1996). Political correctness and social distress in academe: What's old, what's new, what's right and what's left? : Journal of Social Distress & the Homeless Vol 5(2) Apr 1996, 99-109. *Terreblanche, S. J. (2007). Cricket and the liberalist world-view: Sport in Society Vol 10(5) Sep 2007, 744-762. *Terrell, D. L. (1978). White Liberals' Retreat From the American Creed, Excellently Researched and Reported: PsycCRITIQUES Vol 23 (11), Nov, 1978. *Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 45(1) Jul 1983, 118-126. *Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (1993). Liberal and conservative approaches to justice: Conflicting psychological portraits. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. *Thayer, S., & Alban, L. (1972). A field experiment on the effect of political and cultural factors on the use of personal space: Journal of Social Psychology Vol 88(2) Dec 1972, 267-272. *Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 71(2) Sum 2007, 175-203. *Thumin, F. J. (1972). The relation of liberalism to sex, age, academic field and college grades: Journal of Clinical Psychology Vol 28(2) Apr 1972, 160-164. *Tygart, C. E. (1984). Political liberalism-conservatism among clergy: The question of dimensionality: Human Relations Vol 37(10) Oct 1984, 853-861. *Udolf, R. (1973). Liberal and conservative political stereotypes in terms of belief response hierarchies: Psychological Reports Vol 32(1) Feb 1973, 275-284. *Unger, R. K. (2007). Religious ideology, a neglected variable: American Psychologist Vol 62(9) Dec 2007, 1076-1077. *Unger, R. M. (1975). Knowledge and politics. New York, NY: Free Press. *Van der Linden, G. (1991). "From eloquence to credulity" revised: A study of demagogy in a political message: Politics & the Individual Vol 1(1) 1991, 91-118. *Van Snippenburg, L. B., & Vettehen, P. H. (1992). Dutch youth in transition to adulthood: Differential changes in their political and sociocultural values since the 1970s: Journal of Youth and Adolescence Vol 21(5) Oct 1992, 573-591. *Vellani, F. (2006). Left Out. The Politics of Exclusion: Essays 1964-2002: Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol 35(2) Apr 2006, 235-236. *Verkaaik, O. (2003). Fun and violence. Ethnocide and the effervescence of collective aggression: Social Anthropology/ Anthropologie Sociale Vol 11(1) Feb 2003, 3-22. *Walters, W. (2002). Social Capital and Political Sociology: Re-imagining Politics? : Sociology Vol 36(2) May 2002, 377-397. *Weil, F. D. (1985). The variable effects of education on liberal attitudes: A comparative-historical analysis of anti-Semitism using public opinion survey data: American Sociological Review Vol 50(4) Aug 1985, 458-474. *Wildman, R. W., II, & Wildman, R. W. (1974). Liberalism of college students and general public on the Thumin Conservatism-Liberalism Scale: Psychological Reports Vol 35(1, Pt 2) Aug 1974, 441-442. *Wilhelm, B. (1998). Changes in cohabitation across cohorts: The influence of political activism: Social Forces Vol 77(1) Sep 1998, 289-313. *Wilkinson, P. (1977). Terrorism and the liberal state. Oxford, England: Halsted. *Williams, D. M. (1989). Political theory and individualistic health promotion: Advances in Nursing Science Vol 12(1) Oct 1989, 14-25. *Williams, S. (1984). Left-right ideological differences in blaming victims: Political Psychology Vol 5(4) Dec 1984, 573-581. *Wilson, T. C. (1994). Trends in tolerance toward rightist and leftist groups, 1976-1988: Effects of attitude change and cohort succession: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 58(4) Win 1994, 539-556. *Wilson, W., & Wadsworth, A. P. (1972). Attitudes of liberal and conservative students toward ingroups and outgroups: Psychological Reports Vol 31(2) Oct 1972, 463-470. *Witko, C., & Newmark, A. J. (2005). Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States: Social Science Quarterly Vol 86(2) Jun 2005, 356-367. *Wlezien, C., & Carman, C. (2001). Ideological placements and political judgments of government institutions: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 65(4) Win 2001, 550-561. *Wyer, R. S., Budesheim, T. L., Shavitt, S., Riggle, E. D., Melton, R. J., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1991). Image, issues, and ideology: The processing of information about political candidates: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 61(4) Oct 1991, 533-545. *Yellig, W. F., & Wearing, A. J. (1974). The dimensions of political ideology: Journal of Social Psychology Vol 93(1) Jun 1974, 119-131. *Zanna, M. P., Darley, J. M., Chaikin, A., & Shafto, M. (1973). Student political campaigners: Who campaigns and what effect does it have on them? : Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 3(4) Oct 1973, 371-384. *Ziegler, D. J., Korten, M. J., & Murtagh, M. P. (1986). Political stereotypes and attributed psychological needs in liberal and conservative female college students: Psychological Reports Vol 59(2, Pt 1) Oct 1986, 405-406. *Ziegler, M., & Atkinson, T. H. (1973). Information level and dimensionality of liberalism-conservatism: Multivariate Behavioral Research Vol 8(2) Apr 1973, 195-212. *Zilber, J., & Niven, D. (1995). "Black" versus "African American": Are Whites' political attitudes influenced by the choice of racial labels? : Social Science Quarterly Vol 76(3) Sep 1995, 655-664. *Zipp, J. F., & Fenwick, R. (2006). Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony? The Political Orientations and Educational Values of Professors: Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 70(3) Fal 2006, 304-326. *Zizek, S. (1991). Formal democracy and its discontents: Violations of the fantasy-space: American Imago Vol 48(2) Sum 1991, 181-198. Prominent law scholars *Putting liberalism in its place / Paul W Kahn., 2005 (YALE) *Liberalism divided : freedom of speech and the many uses of State power / Owen M Fiss., 1996 (YALE) *The future of liberal revolution / Bruce A Ackerman., 1992 (YALE) *Social justice in the liberal state / Bruce A Ackerman., 1980 (YALE) *Notions of fairness versus the Pareto principle : on the role of logical consistency / Louis Kaplow., 2000 (HARVARD) *Knowledge & politics / Roberto Mangabeira Unger., 1975 (HARVARD) *Principles for a free society / Richard Allen Epstein., 1999 (UCHICAGO) *Fairness in a liberal society / Richard Allen Epstein., 2005 (UCHICAGO) *Skepticism and freedom : a modern case for classical liberalism / Richard Allen Epstein., 2003 (UCHICAGO) *Cultivating humanity : a classical defense of reform in liberal education / Martha Nussbaum., 1997 (UCHICAGO) *Free markets and social justice / Cass R Sunstein., 1997 (UCHICAGO) *Reasonably radical : deliberative liberalism and the politics of identity / Anthony Simon Laden., 2001 (UCHICAGO) *The new inequality : creating solutions for poor America / ed. Joshua Cohen., 1999 (STANFORD) *The rise and fall of British liberalism, 1776-1988 / Alan Sykes., 1997 (STANFORD) *A stream of windows : unsettling reflections on trade, immigration, and democracy / Jagdish Bhagwati., 1998 (COLUMBIA) *Nature and politics : liberalism in the philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau / Andrzej Rapaczynski., 1987 (COLUMBIA) *Law and liberalism in the 1980s : the Rubin lectures at Columbia University / Vincent Blasi., 1991 (COLUMBIA) *Ways of war and peace : realism, liberalism, and socialism / Michael W Doyle., 1997 (COLUMBIA) *The Liberal future in America : essays in renewal / ed. Michael B Levy., 1985 (UCBERKELEY) *Boundaries and allegiances : problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought / Samuel Scheffler., 2001 (UCBERKELEY) *The anatomy of antiliberalism / Stephen Holmes., 1993 (NYU) *Passions and constraint : on the theory of liberal democracy / Stephen Holmes., 1995 (NYU) *Benjamin Constant and the making of modern liberalism / Stephen Holmes., 1984 (NYU) *Liberal rights : collected papers, 1981-1991 / Jeremy Waldron., 1993 (NYU) *Liberals and social democrats / Peter Clarke., 1978 (OXFORD) *Law and the community : the end of individualism? / ed. Leslie Green., 1989 (OXFORD) *From promise to contract : towards a liberal theory of contract / Dori Kimel., 2003 (OXFORD) *The new enlightenment : the rebirth of liberalism / ed. Peter Clarke., 1986 (OXFORD) *Constitutional justice: a liberal theory of the rule of law / T.R.S Allan., 2001 (CAMBRIDGE) Prominent philosophers *Liberalism and social action / John Dewey., 1963 (UCHICAGO) *Combat liberalism / Mao Zedong., 1954 (PEKING) *Free thought and official propaganda / Bertrand Russell., 1922 (CAMBRIDGE) *Political Liberalism / John Rawls., 2005 (HARVARD) *Lectures on the history of political philosophy / John Rawls., 2007 (HARVARD) *The law of peoples ; with, The idea of public reason revisited / John Rawls., 1999 (HARVARD) *Conditions of liberty : civil society and its rivals / Ernest Gellner., 1994 (CAMBRIDGE) *Liberty : incorporating four essays on liberty / Isaiah Berlin., 2002 (OXFORD) *Objectivity and liberal scholarship / Noam Chomsky., 2003 (MIT) *Profit over people : neoliberalism and global order / Noam Chomsky., 1999 (MIT) *Democracy in a neoliberal order : doctrines and reality / Noam Chomsky., 1997 (MIT) *Liberal politics and the public sphere / Charles Taylor., 1995 (MCGILL) *Beyond liberalization : social opportunity and human capability / Amartya Kumar Sen., 1994 (HARVARD) *Sovereign virtue : the theory and practice of equality / Ronald Dworkin., 2000 (NYU) *The legacy of Isaiah Berlin / ed. Ronald Dworkin., 2001 (NYU) *Concealment and exposure : and other essays / Thomas Nagel., 2002 (NYU) *Liberals and communitarians / Stephen Mulhall., 1992 (OXFORD) *John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism / Alan Ryan., 1995 (OXFORD) *Liberal reform in an illiberal regime: the creation of private property in Russia / Stephen Williams., 2006 (OXFORD) *Liberalism, religion, and the sources of value / Simon Blackburn., 2005 (CAMBRIDGE) *Achieving Our Country : Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America / Richard Rorty., 1999 (STANFORD) *Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education / Bob Reich., 2002 (STANFORD) *Boundaries and allegiances : problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought / Samuel Scheffler., 2001 (UCBERKELEY) *The logos reader : rational radicalism and the future of politics / ed. Michael Thompson., 2006 (UPITTSBURGH) *The feminist critique of liberalism / Martha Craven Nussbaum., 1997 (UCHICAGO) *Nietzsche, politics, and modernity : a critique of liberal reason / David Owen., 1995 (UARIZONA) *Contemporary Theories of Liberalism / Gerald Gaus., 2003 (UARIZONA) *Pragmatic Liberalism and the Critique of Modernity / Gary Gutting., 1999 (NOTREDAME) Prominent political scientists *Liberal America and the Third World; political development ideas in foreign aid and social science / Robert A Packenham., 1973 (STANFORD) *Structural conflict : the Third World against global liberalism / Stephen D Krasner., 1985 (STANFORD) *Democracy's discontent : America in search of a public philosophy / Michael J Sandel., 1998 (HARVARD) *Liberalism and the limits of justice / Michael J Sandel., 1998 (HARVARD) *The spirit of liberalism / Harvey Claflin Mansfield., 1978 (HARVARD) *Liberalism and the moral life / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1989 (HARVARD) *Bentham's theory of the modern state / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1978 (HARVARD) *Another liberalism : romanticism and the reconstruction of liberal thought / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1987 (HARVARD) *Liberalism and its critics / Michael J Sandel., 1984 (HARVARD) *Technopols : freeing politics and markets in Latin America in the 1990s / Jorge I Domínguez., 1997 (HARVARD) *The new majority : towards a popular progressive politics / Theda Skocpol., 1999 (HARVARD) *Tyranny and liberty : big government and the individual in Tocqueville's science of politics / Harvey Mansfield., 1999 (HARVARD) *The new American dilemma : liberal democracy and school desegregation / Jennifer L Hochschild., 1984 (HARVARD) *Politics out of history / Wendy Brown., 2001 (UCBERKELEY) *Radicals and conservatives / William McGovern; David S Collier., 1957 (UCBERKELEY) *Tocqueville's revenge : state, society, and economy in contemporary France / Jonah D Levy., 1999 (UCBERKELEY) *Liberalism's crooked circle : letters to Adam Michnik / Ira Katznelson., 1996 (COLUMBIA) *Liberal socialism (Carlo Rosselli) / ed. Nadia Urbinati., 1994 (COLUMBIA) *On liberal revolution (Piero Gobetti) / ed. Nadia Urbinati., 2000 (COLUMBIA) *The clash of orthodoxies : law, religion, and morality in crisis / Robert P George., 2001 (PRINCETON) *Liberal equality / Amy Gutmann., 1980 (PRINCETON) *Diversity and distrust : civic education in a multicultural democracy / Stephen Macedo., 1999 (PRINCETON) *Liberal virtues : citizenship, virtue, and community in liberal constitutionalism / Stephen Macedo., 1991 (PRINCETON) *The inner ocean : individualism and democratic culture / George Kateb., 1992 (PRINCETON) *Economic change and political liberalization in Sub-Saharan Africa / Jennifer A Widner., 1994 (PRINCETON) *Natural law, liberalism, and morality : contemporary essays / Robert P George., 1996 (PRINCETON) *Natural law and public reason / Robert P George., 2000 (PRINCETON) *Liberal international relations theory : a social scientific assessment / Andrew Moravcsik., 2001 (PRINCETON) *Liberalism and international relations theory / Andrew Moravcsik., 1992 (PRINCETON) For secondary literature bibliographies in languages other than English see Additional reading on Liberalism External links * Liberal International * * Peter Berkowitz on "Modern Liberalism" * French Liberalism in the 18th and 19th century * What's the Matter With Liberalism, political theorist Ronald Beiner's classic critique * The divergence between American and English definitions of "liberal", a personal view by Jeffry Fischer * The program of liberalism, Ludwig von Mises * The Oxford Manifesto of 1947 * [http://home.vicnet.net.au/~victorp/vcontent.htm Australian Liberalism: The Continuing Vision] * Liberalism vs. Fascism by Roderick T. Long * The Liberal Magazine committed to reinvigorating Liberalism * Liberal Review an online magazine relating to liberalism in the UK * Category:Political attitudes Category:Political philosophies Category:Social philosophy